Delhi-Taylor Oil Corporation v. Mrs. Viona Huebner, Individually and as Personal Representative of Her Deceased Husband Benno Mathew Huebner

Fifth Circuit

Delhi-Taylor Oil Corporation v. Mrs. Viona Huebner, Individually and as Personal Representative of Her Deceased Husband Benno Mathew Huebner

342 F.2d 418, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 6256

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 11, 1965

Docket21748

StatusPublished

This text of 342 F.2d 418 (Delhi-Taylor Oil Corporation v. Mrs. Viona Huebner, Individually and as Personal Representative of Her Deceased Husband Benno Mathew Huebner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Delhi-Taylor Oil Corporation v. Mrs. Viona Huebner, Individually and as Personal Representative of Her Deceased Husband Benno Mathew Huebner, 342 F.2d 418, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 6256 (5th Cir. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

A careful consideration of the record in this case convinces us that there was substantial evidence from which the jury could iind that the collision resulting in the death of appellee’s decedent was caused by the negligence of appellant’s driver.; that there was sufficient evidence to support the trial Judge’s instructions as to the driver’s failure to apply brakes or to move back to his lane of the highway; that the trial court did not err in excluding evidence of Mrs. Huebner’s earnings; and that the verdict was not excessive as a matter of law.

The judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

A careful consideration of the record in this case convinces us that there was substantial evidence from which the jury could iind that the collision resulting in the death of appellee’s decedent was caused by the negligence of appellant’s driver.; that there was sufficient evidence to support the trial Judge’s instructions as to the driver’s failure to apply brakes or to move back to his lane of the highway; that the trial court did not err in excluding evidence of Mrs. Huebner’s earnings; and that the verdict was not excessive as a matter of law.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

342 F.2d 418, 1965 U.S. App. LEXIS 6256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/delhi-taylor-oil-corporation-v-mrs-viona-huebner-individually-and-as-ca5-1965.